Twiggly the Gnome
Legend
The main reason would probably be that it's already being used as the name of the basic fighter subclass.
D&D 5E Warlord Name Poll
The main reason would probably be that it's already being used as the name of the basic fighter subclass.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Why not just call the Warlock 'Witch', since a Warlock is just a male Witch in folklore. Both historically connote someone who has made a pact with the devil in return for unnatural powers. Not that I really dislike the name 'Warlock', but I never got the notion that its any different from 'Witch'. Perhaps they might be slightly different subclasses in 5e, but given that the Warlock already exists and its name isn't going to change...
I still don't care about the alphabetization. What difference does it make? Nobody is going to confuse the two names, they just come adjacent in the PHB, if there's ever one that includes both again, which is unlikely.
I still say Warlord rolls best off the tongue, and its overall connotation is fine, someone that leads or commands men in battle, which is after all a lot of what the class is about, and engages in politics of some sort, another aspect of the class.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Well, its an interesting 'digression'. What I immediately thought was the opposite is true. Its not that 'nobility leads', its that 'leaders are ennobled'. If you're a really effective leader, you're going to achieve status and rank in a warrior society, which is what Feudal Europe was at its heart. Even well beyond those days, perhaps even more so in later times, talent was rewarded with rank.
Yes, hereditary nobles had a huge inside track, just like the upper class always does in every society, but just because you were born first son of some Comte in 12th Century France didn't mean you were even going to be knighted. If you showed little talent as a leader, you hired someone else to do it for you, or you were passed over for somebody more capable.
IMHO the Warlord is that guy. He's the one that simply has the talent to lead and inspire. Is he nobility? Eh, maybe, but that's why he's 'warlord' and not 'baron', 'knight', or 'marshal'. Maybe he'll be that, maybe some background will give him that on day one, but that part of things is largely a matter of details of the setting and game, not really part of class mechanics proper.
What mechanics can do is give the character the mechanical basis of 'tactician', 'leader of men', etc. Like all mechanics the DM and players should RP to it, and if they don't it may seem flat, but that isn't really the fault of the rules. Fighters can seem like just awkward mechanical cutouts too.
Tony Vargas
Legend
There's no doubt that early D&D had this /idea/ that the Fighter would eventually become a 'Lord' (though just about every class could stake out a territory at name level or acquire some followers, the fighter's presentation was a little more serious about it), but no edition ever followed through with mechanics to support it. Instead, they kept making fighters into more and more specialized combatants, with no use whatsoever for INT or CHA and no applicable skills for running such a little fiefdom.
The 5e fighter, sadly, is no exception. You've heard it said, "Fighters can't have nice things."
Between that and fighter being an utterly generic class concept, martial concepts occasionally get broken out because the fighter just can't do them justice.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Warlord seems to be the worst possible name for the class - except for all the others.
Formal military and noble ranks fail as good names because they are too narrow and specific - and backgrounds can be used for the lower ranks and leveling and/or PrCs for the higher ones. So the name needs to evoke leadership (leadership skills) more than authority (position, formal rank), and it'd be nice if it wasn't too historically/culturally specific (unlike Paladin, for instance). That excludes the runner-up, Marshal, a high formal military rank as a class name, but it could make a good PrC name.
Last edited:
Marandahir
Crown-Forester (he/him)
Hey, it's Marandahir from the WotC forums if you recognise me.
Personally, I like what they've done thus far. Banneret isn't the best name, but it's suitable for a charismatic, inspiring and bravura Fighter. Meanwhile, the tactical, resourceful side of the Warlord seems well fit for the Battle Master archetype. And those who want less of a up-front tactical fighter can go with the more lazyLord-inspired Mastermind Rogue.
I did like that Martial Power 2 added two new types of Warlord – the Skirmishing and Insightful Warlords, both that supplemented their Strength with Wisdom instead of Charisma or Intelligence. Personally, I'd like to see something along those lines added as a third Warlordy-concept.
Finally, there's room for an accomplished Warlord or Battle Captain as a Prestige class. Barbarians can be Warlords. Bards and Fighters can easily be Warlords. Aragorn was a Ranger, but he was also clearly a Warlord (there's also reason to think he took at least a level in Paladin, since he had lay on hands). Paladins, for that matter, make good war leaders. And many of the caster classes can be inspiring or tactical war leaders, ruling from behind.
If Prestige Classes are indeed a thing we want eventually in 5th Edition (I'm convinced that something, whether PrC or PP or ED should be in there, and it should be more than just a feat or two looped together), I think there's definitely room for the actual name "Warlord" to be the Prestige Class for this concept. Meanwhile, one of the great things about 5e is that there is no one class that has dibs on a character concept. There are a lot of ways to hack at older concepts, and few direct one-to-one comparisons, and yet the tools are mostly there for most character concepts (and the ones that aren't, for the most part, are a new subclasses/archetypes, or a feat or two, combined with maybe a background, rather than really needing a full class). Psionics and Rangers seem to be the big question areas in 5e, but subclasses are really easy to homebrew, and 5e is a remarkably malleable edition.
All in all? I'm happy with my purchase of Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide last week.
Personally, I like what they've done thus far. Banneret isn't the best name, but it's suitable for a charismatic, inspiring and bravura Fighter. Meanwhile, the tactical, resourceful side of the Warlord seems well fit for the Battle Master archetype. And those who want less of a up-front tactical fighter can go with the more lazyLord-inspired Mastermind Rogue.
I did like that Martial Power 2 added two new types of Warlord – the Skirmishing and Insightful Warlords, both that supplemented their Strength with Wisdom instead of Charisma or Intelligence. Personally, I'd like to see something along those lines added as a third Warlordy-concept.
Finally, there's room for an accomplished Warlord or Battle Captain as a Prestige class. Barbarians can be Warlords. Bards and Fighters can easily be Warlords. Aragorn was a Ranger, but he was also clearly a Warlord (there's also reason to think he took at least a level in Paladin, since he had lay on hands). Paladins, for that matter, make good war leaders. And many of the caster classes can be inspiring or tactical war leaders, ruling from behind.
If Prestige Classes are indeed a thing we want eventually in 5th Edition (I'm convinced that something, whether PrC or PP or ED should be in there, and it should be more than just a feat or two looped together), I think there's definitely room for the actual name "Warlord" to be the Prestige Class for this concept. Meanwhile, one of the great things about 5e is that there is no one class that has dibs on a character concept. There are a lot of ways to hack at older concepts, and few direct one-to-one comparisons, and yet the tools are mostly there for most character concepts (and the ones that aren't, for the most part, are a new subclasses/archetypes, or a feat or two, combined with maybe a background, rather than really needing a full class). Psionics and Rangers seem to be the big question areas in 5e, but subclasses are really easy to homebrew, and 5e is a remarkably malleable edition.
All in all? I'm happy with my purchase of Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide last week.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Yeah, I kind of agree with you, though I think 'Marshal' has enough non-military connotations to be better than a lot of the other choices, just like I think 'Captain' does as well. While I think 'Warlord' is the snappiest choice I'd settle for either of those in a pinch. And frankly its better to a significant extent simply because it has some history and traction as a class name.
Honestly, is 'Leader' so bad? lol. I think its a bit blunt, you might not be the actual leader of the group, you could be more of a 'coach' or 'advisor', but you could be (which excludes those last two as actual class name suggestions). Meh, I still like 'Warlord' best, compromise though it may be, it evokes fighting and leading, and it rolls off the tongue. Its hard to beat.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Not "negative"--"offensive." "Bard" has a specific significance for Gaelic culture. Although it's probably unlikely, it's possible that someone who takes a lot of pride in their Gaelic heritage and traditions could find the pure "minstrel" interpretation of the Bard offensive. "Cultural appropriation" and the like, since these things are being taken wholly out of their medieval Irish context.
Hmm. Usually "clean up the messes" was a Striker thing though, especially if they use AOEs. Wrangling the party into line sounds like a good fit. I'm not as familiar with the Brady Bunch as I "should" be though, given how many hours of my early youth were wasted on it.
Edit:
It's also worth remembering that the concept of meritocratic promotion was not always considered a good idea, historically. In fact, although my military history isn't especially good, I'd argue that it's something people generally (and Europeans in particular) have re-discovered a couple dozen times over the past 2-3 thousand years. Titles start as being things taken by force, or granted for actions, only to become hollow things "earned" by blood or granted in political jockeying. Then selective pressure reappears in one form or another and reminds people that excessively "artificial" authority structures, like excessively "artificial" economic structures, don't handle stress very well. ("Excessively" because one can argue that these are all constructed, and thus always "artificial," but some clearly cohere more closely with reality than others.)
Last edited:
MichaelSomething
Legend
Call them what they do; support. I bet that sounds real cool 
El Mahdi
Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
LOL. Love It. Just don't say this in Cormyr, though.
You'd probably be okay saying it in Sembia...
I love
You love me
We're best friends
Like friends should be
With a great big hug
And a kiss from me to you
Won't you say you love me too
Last edited:
Similar Threads
